Psychological factors limiting institutional rehabilitation

(1)

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS LIMITING INSTITUTIONAL REHABILITATION

Gisela Trommsdorff*

ABSTRACT

7he undentanding qf whether and what kind of institutional rehabilitation is needed depmds (a) on the method used, and (b) on the objectives (values. goals etc.) (jf such analyses. TIe results 0/ such analyses qf dysJunctional or .functional element.5 depend on the .frame I!f refeunce. TIe hest methods used .for diagno.fi.5 are not very d/ective if the data are not intelpreted in a hroader frame 0/ reference, e.g. ill ^reiation to other institutiom and, lIIore important, in relation to the social and economic problems at hand. Furthermore, social change implies difficulties. TIe understandil~1', of the problems at hand is especially difficult in times 0/ ^rapid

socia-economic change since the people involved in such diagnosis have hem socialized in the sptems whirh are unde~l',oing change. Another problem qf institutional rehabilitation lies in the transformation (jf the diag- nosis into practice. Are the policies chosen ill the way that they are taking into account the problems qf the present situation and its emheddedness in a global situation, plus it.5 embeddedness in .future development and change?

Finally, all)! institutional change will he infDective if ^the^needsand goall of the individual persons who have to make the institutions work do not match with the institutional goals alld comtraillts. Not only tite question of ^acceptin^g^certaillinstitutions and changes of institutionl is relevant here. the question rather i, how.far do individual goals and abilities fit with institutional resources and constraints. 77ze goodness of fit must, again, be seen in the context 0/ ^change; (a) in the context of socio-economic and institutional changes and (b) in the context qf change., of the individual person during his or her lift course. Institutional change will not sucwsJully achieve the level of institutional rehabilitation if individual persons could identij) with such changes and Cflnnot match their own interests with the goals JOT such changes. Thus, the goodnen of fit between individuals alld their qualification alld goals on the one .fide and in.rtitutiorlfll resources and (Q1l-

straints on the other side ill the process 0/ sono-economic chm/p,e are to be taken into accuU//t.

Introduction

Complaints about societal decay abound; they correlate with complaints about institutional decay (e.g., decay of the party system, educational institutions) and the call for institutional rehabilitation. The purpose of the present contribution is to study some of the psychological conditions that limit institutional rehabilitation.

It is not attempted here to explain institutional malfunctions and limitations of institutional rehabilitation by reducing institutions to individual actors.

* Pr of. Dr. Giscla TrommsdorA' holds the chair lor Developmental and Cross-Cultural Psychology at the University of Konstanz. She is a member of several scientific boards and co-editor of several national and international journals. Currently the main emphasis of her research is in socio-emotional development and the value of children and !amily in different cultures.

Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS)URL:

http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/200URN:

http://nbn-resolving. de/urn: nbn: de: bsz: 35 2-opus- Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-83172

URL: http://kops.ub.uni-konstanz.de/volltexte/2009/8317/

(2)

Rather, the vicw taken here is that institutions and individual actors are part of a socio-cultural and economic system, both interacting with each other as well as with other aspccts of this system. Accordingly, it is assumed that institutional malfunction and limits of institutional rehabilitation depend on thc way macro-, meso-, and micro-levels of the society interact and on the way intermediate processes of individual and interpersonal actions con- nect these levels. Thus, a multi-level approach for the understanding of social phenomena is suggested by focusing on individual actors in interaction with their institutionalized environment.

Social scientists are usually less intercsted in the role of individual actors in institutions and the psychological processes involved in individual behavior. On the other hand, psychologists usually ignore the specific quality of social contexts, including social institutions, and its influence on the behavior of individuals.

The individual level is of intcrest here since social institutions cannot function without the participation of individuals supporting the goals of the institution and investing in achieving these goals. Individuals' support and investment will decline in the event of a mismatch between individual expec-

tations and perceived performance of the institutions. Such discrepancies will induce cognitive and motivational processes in the person which may result in dissatisfaction and frustration. This, in turn, may induce behavioral changes on the intra-individual level, e.g., decreasing achievement, motivation and loyalty. Opposition to institutional goals may shift to deviant behavior (corruption, cheating) or disengagement (retreat and anomie). On the levcl of interindividual rclations, this may contribute to a decline in social consensus and greater interpersonal conflict. This is a basis for and a consequence of institutional malfunction and also for limits of institutional rehabilitation. In contrast, the success of effective institutional rehabilitation is based on individual mobilization and support and on interindividual cooperation matching institutional dcmands. Accordingly, measurcs for rehabilitation should focus on both---institutional goals and structures as well as individual goals and behavior-while taking into account that institutions are always part of a broader system. Chances of rehabilitation of institutions increase when the goals and structure of the institution match the goals and abilities of the individual members in the institution (see Figure 1). In the following, first some problems of diagnosis of decay are discussed; then wc focus on individuals and on interactions bctwcen individuals and institutions as constraints on institutional rehabilitation; finally, somc cultural factors limiting rchabilitation are studied.

(3)

Macro Level individualistic

>~rn"

collectivistic

<

modernization

degree of

globalization

1 r

Meso Level Institutions

- goals - structure - interrelations

(with other institutions etc.)

1 ^r

Micro Level

- inter- and intragroup processes

- individual processes

- motivation (goals, values) - abilities

.- identity

Institutional Rehabilitation

r---+I

~

~a~ )

~ ~

Figure I. Interrelations between Institutions and Individual Actors

1. VVlzere rehabilitation starts: Diagnosis

Rehabilitation means that actions are taken to improve a system (organism) that does not function well. Before policies of rehabilitation are applied, a valid diagnosis should be carried out in order to clarify indicators of institutional decay and remedies for institutional rehabilitation. Such a diagnosis consists of several steps and is rclatcd to several problems.

(4)

(1) What are the goals of a valid diagnosis, and which problems have to be dealt with? First, in order to specify failurcs of an institution it is necessary to describe the present situation, including the goals of these institutions and the assumed areas of malfunction. The diagnosis should also specify how thc broader system matches goals and outcomes of the institutions and how the institutions match the needs and qualifications of individuals. Second, besides description of the situation, a valid diagnosis should specify the causes to which malfunctioning is to be attributed.

There are, however, several difficulties in arriving at a valid diagnosis of dysfunctions. A more difficult problem is a valid analyses of the relevant conditions contributing to this malfunctioning. When a diagnosis is based on reliable judgments, the question of validity is not yet solved. A consen- sual diagnosis may be reliable but not necessarily valid. For example, not many people disagree about the dysfunctional state of the German welfare or educational system. However, as one can sce from public statements, there is considerable disagreement about which aspects of such institutions are dysfunctional and what the reasons for such dysfunctions are, not to mention remedies for changing the present situation. Usually, such discrep- ancy between opinions is related to differences in value orientations, goals and interests.

Indicators of decay can be interprctcd as indicators of efficient functioning, depending on the undcrlying value orientation and interests. Espccially in timcs of social change, discrepancies between individual judgments should occur with respect to diagnosis of decay or efficient functioning. To give an example, in Europe we can presently observe significant value changes: loss of utopia and dissolution of ideologies, a decay of charisma and leadership, a decay of values such as social solidarity, achievement, and responsibility;

and, at the same time, we can observe an increase in hedonism and secu- larization. This valuc change is carried on by individuals and their subjective beliefs and interaction styles. Thus, this value change will also affect institutional change. Institutions and individuals can gain or lose from such value change depending on the value orientation, the levcl of aspiration, the level of comparison, or the perspective taken. In a pluralistic society it will be difficult to achieve consensus on judgments of institutional functioning. It may be easier to gain consensus when diagnosing institutional decay. Whethcr this assumption holds and how this can be explained (e.g., negativity bias with respect to institutions in general) remains to be answcred by empirical studies.

Since any diagnosis of institutional malfunctions is bascd on more or less complex judgments, one cannot cxclude the possible effect of underlying

(5)

and hidden subjective beliefs and interests on these judgments. Besides problems of motivation underlying the evaluation process, a diagnosis may start from too high a level of aspiration or be based on one-sided pessimistic esti- mates of expected future outcomes (including misjudgment of winners and losers) of institutional decay. Therefore, a valid diagnosis has to be checked with respect to the effect of biased information processing related to subjective beliefs and interests. This precaution will be even more important when a valid evaluation of strategies for rehabilitation is worked out later on.

One indicator of institutional functioning or decay is whether the institution itself provides the basis to carry out a valid diagnosis of the given situation and to transform the results of the diagnosis into strategies for rehabilitation. For example, the decay of certain institutions, especially the economic system in East Germany, was not adequately analyzed before the collapse occurred. The collapse was not anticipated either by insiders or outsiders. This may be an example of the unwillingness of the elite to carry out a valid diagnosis in order to maintain power. Here, one can see that the act of diagnosing problems and the act of pointing out the necessity of rehabilitation may itself be used as an instrument not to improve but to harm the institution.

(2) From a psychological perspective, a diagnosis of decay must focus on the individual actors involved in these institutions either as members or clients. Here, theoretical assumptions on person-environment relations become relevant. A valid diagnosis has to include psychological aspects of individuals and their proximate environment, focusing on individual motivation and abilities on the onc hand, and on situational resources and constraints, or institutionalized structures and goals, on the other hand. A specification of person-environment relations can clarify some causes for and consequences of institutions' malfunctioning on the individual and interpersonal level, e.g., a lack of cooperation, a prevalence of hostility and conflict between members of the institutions. Such studies are not easy to do since they deal with interactions and processes on a micro-level which may be embedded in changing socio-economic contexts on a macro-level.

(3) The diagnosis has to be complemented by a "valid" description of whether or not and how a transformation of the present state into the desired state can be achieved. Even if a diagnosis of malfunctions is valid, we have to ask whether this entails a need for rehabilitation. The answer again depends on the critcria for assessing gains or losscs of malfunction and rehabilitation. It could very well be argued that a rehabilitation of the church or thc

(6)

educational system is not advisable (another question would be if it was fea- sible). Such a judgment has again to take into account individual needs and resources, thc context of other cultural and societal phenomena, and the interaction between both. This requires the use of multi-method and multi- level methods and an extension of perspective into the future.

2. Constraints on institutional rehabilitation on the individual level

A valid diagnosis is only one step on the way to institutional rehabilitation.

There are more steps to be taken in order to achieve rehabilitation. In the following, we will focus on psychological phenomena, one of the conditions for limited institutional rehabilitation. Some of these psychological phenomena are universal and presumably effective any time under any institutional and situational conditions. In the following, some cognitive and motivational factors are discussed which can function as constraints on institutional rehabilitation.

2. 1 Cognitive and motivational constraints

The degree of rationality of individual behavior is often overestimated. An individual does not follow principles of mechanical rationality, but usually bases his/her aetions on "subjective rationality" ("bounded rationality") which is related to certain cognitive shortcomings, to motivational and affective factors, and to social conditions.

Human beings are not scientists; we normally act on the basis of naive subjective theories which are part of the socio-cultural environment in which we have been socialized. We only have limited cognitive abilities to process information, to understand the world, and to understand how certain problems can be solved. Cognitive abilities develop in the process of individual development, and they are activated under certain situational conditions. People's intuitive heuristics normally works well even though some fundamental "errors" are part of such heuristics (cf. Janis, 1996; Kahneman &

Tversky, 1996):

relative underestimation (or overestimation) of risk;

limitations in understanding complex systems and interrelations between elements of these systems;

limitations in causal thinking: people usually have difficulty understanding that multiple causes have to be taken into account to explain certain

(7)

and hidden su~iective beliefs and interests on these judgments. Besides problems of motivation underlying the cvaluation process, a diagnosis may start from too high a level of aspiration or be based on one-sided pessimistic esti- mates of expected futurc outcomes (including mi~iudgment of winners and losers) of institutional decay. Therefore, a valid diagnosis has to be checked with respect to the effect of biased information processing related to su~iective

beliefs and interests. This precaution will be even more important when a valid evaluation of strategies for rehabilitation is worked out later on.

One indicator of institutional functioning or decay is whether the institution itself provides the basis to carry out a valid diagnosis of the given situation and to transform the results of the diagnosis into strategies for rehabilitation. For example, the decay of certain institutions, especially the economic system in East Germany, was not adequately analyzed before the collapse occurred. The collapse was not anticipated either by insiders or outsiders. This may be an example of the unwillingness of the elite to carry out a valid diagnosis in order to maintain power. Here, one can see that the act of diagnosing problems and the act of pointing out the necessity of rehabilitation may itself be used as an instrument not to improve but to harm the institution.

(2) From a psychological perspective, a diagnosis of decay must focus on the individual actors involved in these institutions either as members or clients. Here, theoretical assumptions on person-environment relations become relevant. A valid diagnosis has to include psychological aspects of individuals and their proximate environment, focusing on individual motivation and abilities on the onc hand, and on situational resources and constraints, or institutionalized structurcs and goals, on the other hand. A specification of pcrson-environmcnt relations can clarify some causes for and consequences of institutions' malfunctioning on the individual and interpersonal level, e.g., a lack of cooperation, a prevalence of hostility and conflict betwcen members of the institutions. Such studies are not easy to do since thcy deal with interactions and processes on a micro-level which may be embedded in changing socio-economic contexts on a macro-level.

(3) The diagnosis has to be complemented by a "valid" description of whether or not and how a transformation of the present state into the desired state can be achieved. Even if a diagnosis of malfunctions is valid, we have to ask whcther this entails a nccd for rehabilitation. The answer again depcnds on the criteria for assessing gains or losses of malfunction and rehabilitation. It could very well be argued that a rehabilitation of the church or the

(8)

educational system is not advisable (another question would be if it was fea- sible). Such a judgment has again to take into account individual needs and resources, the context of other cultural and soeietal phenomena, and the interaction between both. This requires the use of multi-method and multi- level methods and an extension of perspective into the future.

2. Constraints on institutional rehabilitation on the individual level

A valid diagnosis is only one step on the way to institutional rehabilitation.

There are more steps to be taken in order to achieve rehabilitation. In the following, we will focus on psychological phenomena, one of the conditions for limited institutional rehabilitation. Some of these psychological phenomena are universal and presumably effective any time under any institutional and situational conditions. In the foIlowing, some cognitive and motivational factors are discussed which can function as constraints on institutional rehabilitation.

2.1 Cognitive and motivational constraints

The degree of rationality of individual behavior is often overestimated. An individual does not follow principles of mechanical rationality, but usually bases his/her actions on "subjective rationality" ("bounded rationality") which is related to certain cognitive shortcomings, to motivational and affective factors, and to social conditions.

Human beings are not scientists; we normally act on the basis of naive subjective theories which are part of the socio-cultural environment in which we have been socialized. We only have limited cognitive abilities to process information, to understand the world, and to understand how certain problems can be solved. Cognitive abilities develop in the process of individual development, and they are activated under certain situational conditions.

People's intuitive heuristics normally works well even though some fundamental "errors" are part of such heuristics (cf. Janis, 1996; Kahneman &

Tversky, 1996):

relative underestimation (or overestimation) of risk;

limitations in understanding complex systems and interrelations between elements of these systems;

limitations in causal thinking: people usually have difficulty understanding that multiple causes have to be taken into account to explain certain

(9)

effects in a complex system; they also have difficulty understanding that causal relations in social systcms are not usually unidirectional and have reciprocal effects;

limitations in understanding changing processes: people have difficulty understanding that a certain evcnt is only part of a process in a contin- uous chain of events which differs in its functional importance depending on the time and length of its occurrence;

limitations in the ability to foresee changes: the near future is usually more relevant than the far futurc; therefore, the long-term effects, c.g. of present political actions, are not usually taken into account to a sufficient extent;

furthermore, culture-specific effects on cognitive errors (e.g., attribution bias; reasoning about contradictions) (Trommsdorff, in press) have to be taken into account.

Cognitive training can only reduce the limitations in risk estimation or multidimensional thinking to a certain degree. These limitations are typical in the thinking and behavior of naive actors and also of expert members of institutions, and they can induce institutional malfunctions and also limitations of institutional rehabilitation. The scientific approach to the study of (the rehabilitation of) institutions may itself be subject to such shortcomings. At least it cannot ignore such errors as normal charactcristics of people's planning, problem-soLving, and acting in an institution.

These cognitivc shortcomings are related to motivational and affective dynamics in human thinking and behavior. Thcrefore, it is useful to ana- lyze whether specific motivational conditions contribute to limitations of institutional rehabilitation. Well-known phenomena include the preference for immediate rewards instead of delay of gratification. This contrasts with rehabilitation strategies that often require the motivation to delay (individual) gratification in order to accumulate resources over time (which can be shared with the individual members Latcr on). Other motivational constraints can be seen, e.g., in the "individualistic" preference for maximizing individual outcomes while institutional rehabilitation requires a "collcctivistic"

orientation accepting the interdependence of goals and the necessity to refrain from egoistic goal pursuit.

Both the cognitive and motivational conditions of individual action are affected by the individual's socialization in a certain cohort and socio-cultural and economic context and by the individual's socio-emotional and cognitive development. Depending on individual biography and given social and individual resources, the person evaluates his/her relation to the envi-

(10)

ronment, defines his/her goals (which are embedded in a certain motivation system), and acts in a given situation (see Figure 2).

2.2 Person-institution relations as constraints

Other psychological phenomena only occur in certain person-environment relations, c.g., the subjective perception of institutional malfunction, related disappointment of frustration, and the activation of certain behavior. Here, the interplay between person and environment, or more precisely, between person and institution are relevant.

What are the psychologieal processes when people are involved in institutional rehabilitation? From a motivational theoretical framework, a person's behavior is structured around his/her dominant goals which are part of his/her identity (Cantor, Norem, Niedenthal, Langston, & Browcr, 1987).

These goals ("current concerns," "personal projects") represent what one wants to obtain or to preserve. In periods of institutional rehabilitation these individual goals and ways of achieving these goals may be negatively affected.

Any experience of frustration of important individual goals will induce negative emotions and activate psychological processes which allow problem solving and coping in line with one's personal goals and need fulfillment.

Depending on the conflict between individual goals and institutionalized goals (or goals for institutional rehabilitation), an individual's motivation to support and foster such rehabilitation procedures ean be increased or decreased. Individual action can even become a major obstacle to the achievement of institutional rehabilitation. This is the case when the relation between the individual and the institution is problematic in one of the following ways: (a) individual and institutional goals do not match; (b) individual abilities and motivations to achieve institutional goals do not match as regards the inputs required for institutional rehabilitation; (e) the institution does not provide the necessary means for the individual to achieve his/her goals.

3. Interactions between person and institution

Next, some examples are discussed that describe how institutionalized and individual constraints interact and can be the basis for failure for institutional rehabilitation---e.g., the rehabilitation of the elite, of political pro- grams, of political decision making.

(11)

Social Change

- on macro level (e.g. welfare system, production)

r->" - on meso- and micro level -

I Transformation of Institutions

I

Individual's Socialization Experience and outcoIlles:

goals; competence Subjective Experience of

1

Person-EnvironIllent-Relations

I îdentity I • • I ^context I I îndividuâl^goals I I goals of institution~

-

1

^--_^...^'^..^- ^~

- control orientation (justice, norms)

- subjective expectations (optimism, pessimism) - emotional experience (support, satisfaction)

1 i

Acting on Person-EnvironIllent-Relations - interpersonal bchavior (e.g. cooperation, conflict) - problem solving, coping

- participation in change

(e.g. political participation, free rider)

Figure 2. Transformation of Institutions in Time of Social Change

(12)

3. I Institutionalized constraints on individual mobilization and institutional rehabilitation

Institutional decay and failure of rehabilitation may result from institutionalized structures which constrain the mobilization of individual resources.

In the following, some examples are given.

(a) The Russian situation demonstrates that socio-economic recovery, including the development of an elite, is blocked by the establishment. The establishment holds power on the basis of past position and party-based social network but less on the basis of democratic decision making, competition and achievement. Individual success is often based on implicit rules including corruption. Disappointed expectations of enjoying democracy and an efficient new system leaves a frustrated intelligentsia in search of a new utopia or actually leaving the country. This frustrated new generation feels handicapped in overcoming the quasi-institutionalized egoistic accumulation of power. Goals for rehabilitation focus on changing the present economic and social situation, but, the perceived lack of control may foster passive compliance.

(b) The present situation in Germany demonstrates that constructive political decision making and action is blocked by the institutionalized control of power. Such control was established by the constitution after the Second World War in order to prevent a misuse of power. However, this has become an institutionalized way of preventing political action. The institutionalized blocking of major decision making by legalized action can be seen as a misuse of this control of power or as an indicator of decay in the party system. Furthermore, even the institutionalized control of power in Germany does not necessarily function effectively as current scandals of corruption, illegal personal profit ·or scandals of party financing demonstrate.

The advantage of an institutionalized control of power based on a democratic system is to secure a stable and predictable government. The disadvantage, however, is that major political changes are quite impossible, especially in a situation in which major changes are needed, e.g., when the economic, social, and political situation is in great need of a major transition. Such transition, however, may be hindered by institutionalized constraints. An example of party politics in Germany are inter-group processes of accusing the other party of being responsible for the present malfunctioning of institutions without taking responsibility and acting on institutional rehabilitation.

(13)

(c) The effects of globalization can block the rehabilitation of institutions in our society, e.g., German companies get cheap labor abroad while the more expensive labor in one's own country is laid off. The German welfare sys- tcm has to takc care of the unemployed while companies avoid participat- ing in supporting the welfare system by moving thcir companies to countries with lower taxes. While the welfare system and the taxpayers pay the costs, the companies enjoy the profits of globalization. The govcrnmcnt cannot intervene. The institutionalized means of control and sanctions arc very limited when capital and companies can move freely in the new global world.

Here, the rules of justice are harmed while the values of competition and economic success have priority.

Another example of limits to the rehabilitation of national institutions lies in the fact that globalization can change the effectiveness of national institutions. This can presently be observed in conflicts between the national and European law system. Furthermore, institutionalized values may dete- riorate and have little chance of rehabilitation when regulations on the national level arc no longer effective due to interventions on the global level.

To give an example, wc can presently observe significant differences between nations with respect to pollution control. Why should onc country invest in ecologi.cally necessary technologies and behavior when other countries refrain from such investments and thereby increase the ecological problem for everyone? Rehabilitation of related institutions on thc national level is not sufficient to solve a general world-wide problem. For such issues, a world institution is necessary. Hcrc, limits of rehabilitation are related to the kind of the problem and its quality of interdependence in a broader system. This in turn has consequences for the individual motivation to engage in institutional rehabilitation.

3.2 Psychological constraints on institutional rehabilitation: Decreased acceptance

if

norms and regulations

The limits of rehabilitation can be seen in the deficiencies in matching the individual's motivation and abilitics and the needs for institutional rehabilitation.

(a) There is wide agreement that individual misuses of resources of the welfare system is an indicator of institutional decay. Statistics show that about 50% of manual labor in Germany is done by moonlighters. Here, the interplay between institutionalized constraints and individual action feeds the following spiral: the legal working hour is costly on account of taxes which have to be deducted; therefore, it is unattractive to take a legal job while an illegal job makes sense. The relationship between institutionalized tax

(14)

deductions (which arc necessary to pay for the system, including the welfare system) and the expenses for legal work can become dysfunctional. Such work relationships start to escape the control of the tax system and regress into personal relationships between private persons exchanging money for labor.

(b) It is a well-known fact that corruption is on the increase, especially in the construction business. For example, local officials who give a certain project to a construction firm can profit personally from this decision; at the same time, costs for the project will increase since the kickbacks have to be compensated for. Instead, the government (i.e., taxpayer) has to pay the extra costs. Official building inspectors, whose job it is to make sure that certain rules and standards are followed in construction style to pre- selVe ecological niches, arc another example. Officials can misuse their power by changing these rules to receive financial rewards. Even though corruption is not velY typical and extreme in Germany in contrast to certain other countries, there are many such cases which come quite close to illegal acts of profiting from public property, as Scheuch and Scheuch (1992) have demonstrated in their fascinating case studies. Recently morc cases of misuse of political office and political leaders obtaining personal privileges have been made public in Germany. The Christian Democratic party in Germany is presently undergoing a severe crisis due to recently discovered uncon- ventional practices of financing party activities.

The sociological aspect of this phenomenon is that the misuse of an official role in order to gain personal profits indicates institutional decay. This decay, in turn, is based on individual behavior, for example, giving up one's pro- fessional ethic as a governmental official. One psychological aspect of this phenomenon is that those who are governmental officials no longer pursue the goals of the institution since they no longer identifY with these goals and related regulations nor give priority to institutional goals instead of their personal goals. Another psychological aspect related to the consequences of such events is that such scandals do not support the individual's acceptance and trust in institutions, nor do they mobilize individual motivation to engage in citizenship and responsibility.

Does the deviant behavior of individual private persons and individual officials really indicate institutional decay? If individual deviance has social effects, one could operationalize this as an indicator of decay, but it does not specify the degree and quality of institutional decay. However, the psychological efICct of perceiving other people behaving illegally and profiting at the expense of the public has implications for institutional decay. When several individuals engage in such illegal activities, several psychological mechanisms become activated.

(15)

Psychological reasons for engaging in behavior reducing chances for institutional rehabilitation are manifold. Several psychological theories can explain such behavior. For example, learning theory predicts modeling and imitation of successful deviance. The diffusion of illegal behavior thereby becomes normal and hinders institutional rehabilitation. Theories on distributive justice predict that once the belief in a just world is shaken, efforts of restruc- turing this belief are undertaken. Such efforts may result in a decrease in individual investments in institutional rehabilitation.

3.3 Frustrated expectations as constraints on individual rehabilitation

Let us have a closer look at the implications of this theory. A general psychological thesis is that the belief in a just world and a related need for justice regulate our behavior (Lerner & Lerner, 1981). However, whether people subjectively experience justice or not depends to a large degree on the way they evaluate their own investments and returns. Justice is experienced if the person believes that input and output match. One does not want to invest more than one receives. Also, one does not want others to earn more than they have invested. When experiencing injustice, activities are taken to reestablish justice. For example, one may quit one relationship and enter another where more justice is expected. The experience of injustice can activate a negative emotional state. For example, being the victim of injustice can affect one's self-concept negatively and can also activate hostile feelings against those responsible for an injustice. These feelings may motivate a person to harm this source or to reestablish justice by another means.

When individuals observe that the institution allows certain other individuals to increase their own benefits by breaking the rules this can result in imitation and diffusion of responsibility. Imitating the illegal behavior of others reduces one's feelings of guilt which otherwise would serve as internalized control and prevent such behavior. Furthermore, the intra-individual reorganization of one's belief in a just world can attach a new value of justice to illegal behavior and thus reduce the chance for institutional rehabilitation. People justify their own illegal behavior by claiming that everyone else is doing the same thing. In this manner, one's belief in a just world can be supported. Constraints of institutional rehabilitation may thus result from imitating the illegal behavior of others and creating a new informal individualized system of justice. The free-rider system follows a similar line of reasoning. When the institutionalized control system has lost its acceptance, individuals pursue individual goals at the cost of the public and build on constraints on institutional rehabilitation.

(16)

Once an institution is regarded as incompatible with the rules of justice, it will lose its legitimization and the individual person's illegal behavior is justified. Illegal acts do not induce guilt feelings since one can interpret the situation as compensation for past experiences of injustice. Accordingly, the subjective experience of injustice in one's individual relation to an institution could decrease loyalty and justify illegal behavior, thus contributing to the decay of person-institution relations and building constraints on institutional rehabilitation.

People may experience a feeling of injustice when reflecting on the German public health system. German tax payers contribute to the system by pay- ing a considerable amount of money, but if they are not currently in need of medical care or social support, they do not receive the corresponding amount of care or support in return. The rationale underlying the institutionalized rule of the welfare system is that the input of the healthy person will benefit those in need of care at that time; of course, any given healthy person may develop a need at any point in time and thus unexpectedly profit from the welfare system. The calculation of each individual's input is based on a calculation of average risk, including the costs to make the system work. Any expectation of the individual that he/she should receive more than he/she invests (e.g., since some revenues should be paid back) is unrealistic. However, such expectations are often held and their frustration can induce a feeling of unjust treatment and the related motivation to re establish justice by illegal means. The wish to counterbalance injustice by harming the institution may increase when a person believes that other people profit from the welfare system more than oneself without really deserv- ing it. The experience of injustice is related to over- or underestimating balance of inputs and outputs.

In most western cultures, there is a tendency to underestimate the input of the other party and to overestimate one's own input (attribution bias) and also to feel entitled to certain outcomes without personal investment.

Accordingly, the evaluation of "who deserves what" can be biased. Such bias is increased by in-group and out-group differentiation and by negative stereotyping of out-group members. When Germans feel that people from other countries live in Germany under much better economic conditions than "at home", but at the expense of the German welfare system and at the German taxpayer, hostile feelings may arise, not only towards the welfare system, but also towards foreigners.

A collective calculation of justice does not necessarily coincide with individ- ual calculations of justice. People who follow their subjective view of individualized justice in contrast to a collective one withdraw a basic source of legitimacy for the system. When this attitude becomes a generalized belief

(17)

shared by other people, such social construction of injustice contributes to institutional decay and hinders institutional rehabilitation.

4. Constraints on institutional rehabilitation in different cultures and in times qf social change

4.1 Cultural difJerences: Individualistic and collectivistic interests

It is not at all surprising that human beings strive for individual goals and pursue hedonistic values. People want a solid income, a satisfying lifestyle, and an accepted social status. The pursuit of such needs is only functional for the system if people arc willing and able to organize their goals and related behavior in ways that are compatible with the goals of specific institutions.

Of course, there are not only individual but also cultural differences with respect to giving priority to individual goals or institutionalized demands and rules in the accommodation of personal interests (cf. Trommsdorff, 1999;

in press). Cultural differences are obvious when comparing collectivistic and individualistic cultures with respect to the way public interests are preserved at the expense of individual needs. Individualistic as compared to collectivistic cultures differ, e.g., with respect to the preference of public vs. private goals or with respect to justice rules. In individualistic systems a preference for equity prevails, while in collectivistic societies a preference for equality (everyone should gain the same as everyone else) dominates. In individualistic societies, the preference for autonomy and independence contrasts significantly with the preference for accepting authority and institutionalized rules in collectivistic societies. If one's investment serves the interests of the group, e.g., onc's family, foregoing individual gains do not mean personal disadvantage for people in collectivistic societies (Hofstede, 1980; Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994; Trommsdorff, 1999).

Here, value differences with respect to giving priority to one's own personal profit versus giving priority to the profit of the community come into play. In tribal cultures, individual and family profit are usually experienced as being the same. Therefore, corruption by promoting the interests of the family members or members of one's in-group is not unusual. The extension of a person's needs and goals- -to oneself, to the in-group, or to an anonymous system- is thus an important mediating factor for accepting the frame for actions as provided by the institution.

Here lies another difficulty with regard to the realization of institutional change. In the modern industrialized and highly individualized western world,

(18)

people have learned to focus on their own needs and achieve an identity which is directed by hedonistic goal attainment. This orientation can be dysfunctional for certain institutions, especially in terms of fulfilling social needs or needs of social groups. These examples demonstrate that it is not sufficient to focus on a few psychological aspects in human behavior; one must also consider the culture-specific socialization experiences of the individuals who act in certain institutions, and the cultural background in which this socialization took place, focusing on the impact of macro-variables on individual behavior, especially in times of social change. To what extent do the goals of the institutions subjectively match the identity of the individuals engaged in these institutions (as members or as clients)?

4.2 Social change and socialization as a means qf promoting goodness qffit

Since human behavior is guided by individual interests, appealing to these interests will improve the functioning of institutions. Of course, such appeals can be paired with a certain system of positive or negative sanctions. When these sanctions are internalized by the individual, the institution will save a lot of energy and costs for controlling individual behavior. Under certain conditions, internalized values and competence turn out not to be more effective. In times of social change, the individual may experience drastic failures of institutions and may look for a new way to match individual needs and institutionalized goals. In this case, new ways of appraisal and reappraisal, including problem solving and coping strategies, become necessary (see Figure 2).

An individual is usually socialized in a such a way as to assimilate institutionalized constraints and to accommodate institutionalized demands to a certain degree. This does not however, mean that individuals simply follow the rules of institutionalized demands. An individual learns to find ways of interpreting and changing such constraints according to his/her individual needs and goals which, again, are not completely independent of institutionalized constraints. However, the effects of socialization may also bring about constraints on institutional rehabilitation since routine, tradition, and established individual behavior patterns are preserved.

One example of the interdependence of institutions and individual behavior is the institutionalized transformations after the turnabout in East Germany.

The institutions were completely replaced; however, the people were not necessarily replaced. Simply replacing institutions does not guarantee that the new institutions function in the intended way. People selving in these institutions can make the institutions function in ways that fit their belief systems and previous customs (Trommsdorff, 2000). To give other examples,

(19)

the institutionalization of democracy in Japan or in Singaporc has produced completely different ways of democratic institution building as compared to Western societies due to the different culture-specific socialization of the people in these institutions. In turn, the introduction of the free market system in Eastern Europe has had the unexpected effects of increasing socio-economic inequality and corruption, again partly due to the different soeial- ization experiences of thc people.

The limits of institutional change and transformation may thus consist in the perpetuation of "traditional" ways of behavior in times of social change as can be seen in the Russian agriculture (Stahl-Rolf, 1999). Thc dominance of certain behavioral styles which have proved to be successful under different institutionalized conditions may therefore be another reason why individuals can (even unintentionally) block the rehabilitation and transformation of institutions. This also applies to necessary behavioral change in postmodern societies. Changes in institutions and related changes in people's behavior are not possible unless people arc willing to give up established beliefs.

Institutional rehabilitation is in certain ways limited by processes on the individual level. However, these interact with phenomena on the institutional level which again interact with contextual phenomena. Therefore, the limitations of institutional rehabilitation cannot be studied by focusing on single variables such as individual motivation and behavior. One must view these variables in a broader context in order to understand their meaning and function.

5. Conclusions and outlook

It is obvious to many of us that new ways have to be found in order to deal with the accumulation of ecological, social, economic, and political problems in a global and future-oriented perspective. Such changes imply institutional changes and, furthermore, according to my previous thesis, changes in individual beliefs and behavior patterns.

Thinking in a global and a future-oriented perspective is not very cus- tomary or easy for most people. Future orientation requires a certain time perspective and a cognitive and motivational readiness to anticipate short- and long-term, latent and manifest future consequences of present behavior (Trommsdorff, 1994). This also entails taking uncertainty into account and dealing with responsibility beyond one's own present existence. Even though Western thinking allows for a linear time perspective and future-oriented delay of gratification, the demands with respect to a problem focused, inno- vative future orientation surpass what we are accustomed to in our every-

(20)

day life and usual planning behavior. Such cognitive and motivational shortcomings of individuals (Kahneman & Tversky, 1996), and even more so of social groups (cf. Janis, 1996), are serious obstacles for institutionalized rehabilitation.

Another obstacle lies in the human need to form an identity which is part of one's socialization experiences and as such is closely connected to one's immediate socio-cultural environment. One's personal identity is usually related to one's social identity and its regional, ethnic, or local roots.

If one's social identity does not correspond to the demands of the institution, problems for both- the person and the institution-can be expected.

Even in a pluralistic and individualistic society, human beings do not simply function in a way that their identity is based on autonomy and sep- arateness. In contrast, the basic human need for affiliation and social acceptance requires some emotional bonding and embeddedncss in a social group, even in individualistic cultures (Trommsdorff, 1999). However, cross-cultural research has shown enormous cultural differences with respect to the degree of need for individuality and independence versus social orientation and interdependence.

Also, the related ability to accept multiple identities and multiple open in-groups instead of traditional in-group-out-group boundaries depends on one's culture-specific socialization (Trommsdorff, in press). The readiness to tolerate or even identify with different cultural groups depends on the extent of independence and interdependence in one's identity and the fluidity and range of in-group-out-group boundaries. However, it does not seem very realistic to expect people to achieve a "global identity," to accept global cultural encounters, and the global interplay of institutions which are related to such multiple imports and exports of cultural identity and which are necessary for transformation and rehabilitation of present institutions.

To conclude, whether and what kind of institutional rehabilitation is needed depends on the quality of the diagnosis, and therefore on the quality of the methods used. However, the best methods used for diagnoses are not very effective if the data are interpreted in a biased framework. In times of social change, more difficulties have to be dealt with in arriving at a valid diagnosis and a sound interpretation of the empirical data. Another problem of institutional rehabilitation lies in the transformation of the diagnosis into rehabilitation therapy. Do the policies chosen take into account the people's present abilities and motives and the institutions' problems, including their embeddedness in processes of global change and development?

Any institutional change ,,,ill be ineffective if the needs and goals of the individuals who have to make the institutions work do not match the institutional goals and constraints. Not only the question of accepting certain

(21)

institutions and changes in institutions is relevant here. The question concerns the extent to which individual goals and abilities fit institutional resources and constraints now and in the future. The goodness of fit bctween the individual and the institution must, again, be seen in the context of change (a) in the context of socio-economic and institutional change, and (b) in the context of change in the individual dUling his/her life course. Institutional change will not reach the level of institutional rehabilitation if the individual does not identify with such changes and does not see his/her own interests in the goals of such changes. Thus, the fit between an individual's qualification and goals, on the one hand, and institutional resources and constraints, on thc other, arc to be taken into account in the process of socio-economic change.

Decreasing motivation and decreasing identification with thc goals of an institution on the part of the mcmbers and the clients of that institution are the beginning of the system's decay and induce the nced for institutional rehabilitation and social change. However, there are limitations in the "limitations of institutional rehabilitation" which are also tied to individual behavior. The individual's motivation and abilities not only restrict the efficiency of institutional changes, they may also bc the basis of fundamental social change and related institutional change as can be seen in the historical case of the turnabout in East Germany. The people changed the system by aban- doning it and initiating a peaceful revolution. In the case of the turnabout in East Germany, institutional rehabilitation has been enacted as a com- plete exchange of institutions. The effectiveness of such "treatment," however, depends on individual bchavior and its social interconneetedncss.

REFERENCES

Cantor, N., Norem, .J.K., Niedenthal, P.M., Langslon, C.A, & Browcr, AM. (1987). Life lasks, self-concept ideals, and cognitive strategies in a lile transition. Joul7lal if Personality alld Social l'rycilOlogy, 53, I I 7 B-I 19 I.

Holstede, G. (Ed.). (19BO). Culture's consequences: illtematirmal differences ill wvrk-rdated values. London:

Sage.

Janis, T.T.. (1996). Grouplhink. In.J. Billsberry (Ed.), 17ze ~ffectwe mallagn: Pm/ieetives and il/us- tmtiolls (pp. 166 17B). London: Sage.

Kahneman, D., & Twrsky, A (1996). On the realilY or cognitive illusions. PryC/wlogirnl Reviav, i 03, 582-.')91.

Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.-C., & Ynon, G. (1991). Introduclion. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-c. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), individualislll and collectivism: 'flleory, method, and aJiJilications (pp. 1-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lerner, Mj., & Lerner, J.C. (Eds.). (19BI). 111e justice motive ill social belravior. New York:

Plenum.

\IIarkus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implicalions ror cognition, emo- tion, and mOlivation. Prychological Review, 98, 224-2.')3.

(22)

Scheuch. E. & Scheuch, U. (1992). Cliquell, Kliillgelulld Karrieren _[Cliques,factions, and careers].

Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Stahl-Rolf; S.R. (1999). Gefangen in der Tradition: Wie kulturelle Eigenheiten die Reform der russischcn I,andwirtschaft behindern rCaught in tradition: How culture specifics impede the refiJrm of Russian agriculture). Max Planck F'orschung, _4,_44-49.

TrommsdorfT, G. (1994). Future time perspective and control orientation: Social conditions and consequences. In Z. Zaleski (Ed.), P'!Jchology of future orientation _(S. ₃₉'62). Lublin, Poland: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.

(1999). Autonomic und Verbundenheit im kulturellen Vergleich von Sozialisations- bedingungcn [Autonomy and attachment in the cross-cultural comparison of socialization conditions]. In H.R. Leu & L. Krappmann (Hrsg.), Zwischen Autollomie Ulld Verbundenheit (S. 392-419). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

(2000). Subjective experience of social change in individual development. In J. Bynner

& R.K. Silbcrcisen (Eds.), Adversity and challenge in life ill the new Germany and ill England _(pp.

87 122). Houndmills, England: Macmillan Press.

- - (in press). Kulturvergleichende Sozialpsychologie [Cross-cultural social psychology]. In D. Frey & M. Irle (Hrsg.), 7neorim der So::.ialprydlOlogie (2. vollst. iiberarb. AuA.). Goltingen:

Hogrcfc.